SC declines producer’s plea in Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’ certification case
The court said a division bench of the Madras High Court had listed the matter for hearing on January 20 and there was no occasion to step in at this stage
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with a Madras High Court order staying a single judge’s direction to grant a “UA 16+” certificate to the Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan, observing that the matter was actively pending before a division bench of the high court.
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih noted that since the division bench of the Madras High Court had already seized of the dispute and listed it for hearing on January 20, there was no occasion for the apex court to step in at this stage. The bench said the film’s producers were at liberty to raise all their legal contentions before the high court.
At the same time, the Supreme Court urged the high court to make an endeavour to decide the matter finally on January 20, after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for KVN Productions, pressed the urgency of the issue, arguing that a film was a “perishable commodity” and that substantial investments had already been made towards booking theatres and promotional activities.
Rohatgi told the bench that over 5,000 theatres had been booked for the film’s release and that delays in certification were causing irreparable commercial harm. He submitted that it was a long-settled industry practice to announce release dates well before receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
But the bench appeared disinclined to bypass the high court’s process. It remarked that when the division bench had already listed the matter for January 20, there was no reason for the apex court to intervene.
The bench also pointed out that the CBFC chairperson’s order dated January 6, referring the film to the Revising Committee, had not been specifically challenged before the high court.
The bench expressed concern over the manner in which the single judge of the Madras High Court had disposed of the case. It questioned the “brisk pace” at which the matter was decided within a day of being reserved for orders, while also declining to grant adequate time to the opposing parties to file their written submissions. “Why should the party not be given a chance to reply?” the bench asked.
The film has been widely projected as Vijay’s last cinematic outing before his full-time entry into electoral politics and was announced as a Pongal release slated for January 9. Vijayhas launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
Trouble began on January 6, when the CBFC chairperson decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee, despite the Examining Committee of the CBFC’s Chennai regional office having agreed to grant a “UA 16+” certificate, subject to certain edits.
KVN Productions challenged this decision before the Madras High Court, where a single judge, Justice PT Asha, on January 9 quashed the chairperson’s referral order and directed the CBFC to issue the certification forthwith. Justice Asha held that the chairperson had acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification process after the examining committee had already cleared the film. She observed that the complaint triggering the review appeared to be an “afterthought” and warned that entertaining such objections at a late stage could lead to a “dangerous trend”.
However, within hours of the single judge’s ruling, a division bench of the Madras High Court, comprising chief justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan, stayed the operation of the order, noting that the matter required detailed consideration. The division bench questioned the producers for fixing a release date without obtaining certification, asking whether this amounted to creating “artificial pressure” on the court.
The division bench also took note of submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, who argued that neither the Centre nor the CBFC had been granted sufficient time to respond and that the CBFC chairperson’s January 6 communication had been set aside without being specifically challenged.
Following the high court’s interim stay, the CBFC filed a caveat in the Supreme Court on January 12 to ensure that no orders were passed without hearing its submissions, anticipating a move by the producers to approach the apex court.
